Do you buy in to the news conspiracy theories?

[tinfoilhat]

Kelly was an odd one. But I can't help but think that if it was somebody from the security services they'd have made it look less dodgy. Maybe that was Kelly's plan? Make his own death look suspect?

[Anna B]

8 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Kelly was an odd one. But I can't help but think that if it was somebody from the security services they'd have made it look less dodgy. Maybe that was Kelly's plan? Make his own death look suspect?

At the time, I don't think Secret Security services had considered the impact of the internet. They probably hadn't considered what they thought of as relatively insignificant minor details, soon forgotten, hitting social media and being checked, cross referenced, discussed endlessly and indelibly etched into the public psyche in a way that hadn't happened before. They also counted on  whatever they (or the Establishment,) chose to put out into the public domain being immediately accepted as the truth by the general population, not realising that the world had changed and people were waking up to other possibilities. Politicians were no longer held in any regard or trusted.    

Edited January 28, 2019 by Anna B

[Top Cats Hat]

16 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Kelly was an odd one. But I can't help but think that if it was somebody from the security services they'd have made it look less dodgy. Maybe that was Kelly's plan? Make his own death look suspect?

I tend to agree with this.

 

The British state is very unlikely to outright murder someone in the early years of the 21st century. Much easier to discredit him with false evidence, fake charges, widespread rumour and speculation all of which is very easy for the security services to carry out.

[melthebell]

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

At the time, I don't think Secret Security services had considered the impact of the internet. They probably hadn't considered what they thought of as relatively insignificant minor details, soon forgotten, hitting social media and being checked, cross referenced, discussed endlessly and indelibly etched into the public psyche in a way that hadn't happened before. They also counted on  whatever they (or the Establishment,) chose to put out into the public domain being immediately accepted as the truth by the general population, not realising that the world had changed and people were waking up to other possibilities. Politicians were no longer held in any regard or trusted.    

i think its the opposite, the rise of the internet and social media is NOT this massive fact finder of government secret service "crimes" but a rampent playground where people talk crap, make things up...and hope stuff sticks.

[L00b]

I've long liked techno-thrillers, as books and movies. There's a line between their plots  and reality which, through technological progress and geopolitical stakes, is getting increasingly blurred, as the work of regrettably too few investigative journalists (like Carol Cadwalhar) attest. 

 

Many many years ago, I served awhile in a sensible posting (was security services-vetted for it), and the stuff I saw, the extent and detail of files on local personalities (incl. local MPs)...put it that way, I never used to be so cynical about politics and governments before that experience. Without going into wholesale heavy stuff like assassinations and moon landings and whatnot, but taking even innocuous issues like unemployment figures, air quality, government-assisted redundancy negotiations, infrastructural investment decisions...there's (usually) a world of difference between what is being reported and perceived by 'people', and what really goes on.

 

Now this isn't a blank cheque of support to CTs...but a word of warning never to take anything official you hear about a (local and upwards-) government decision or act, as gospel. Better to find the objective money and/or political trail of self-interest, and to follow where it leads.

Edited January 28, 2019 by L00b

[woodview]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

I've long liked techno-thrillers, as books and movies. There's a line between their plots  and reality which, through technological progress and geopolitical stakes, is getting increasingly blurred, as the work of regrettably too few investigative journalists (like Carol Cadwalhar) attest. 

 

Many many years ago, I served awhile in a sensible posting (was security services-vetted for it), and the stuff I saw, the extent and detail of files on local personalities (incl. local MPs)...put it that way, I never used to be so cynical about politics and governments before that experience. Without going into wholesale heavy stuff like assassinations and moon landings and whatnot, but taking even innocuous issues like unemployment figures, air quality, government-assisted redundancy negotiations, infrastructural investment decisions...there's (usually) a world of difference between what is being reported and perceived by 'people', and what really goes on.

 

Now this isn't a blank cheque of support to CTs...but a word of warning never to take anything official you hear about a (local and upwards-) government decision or act, as gospel. Better to find the objective money and/or political trail of self-interest, and to follow where it leads.

Genuine question. Doesn't that experience make you concerned about more centralization of government and it being further removed from local level? I definitely, definitely don't want to sidetrack this thread onto the 'B' word, just interested.

[melthebell]

40 minutes ago, woodview said:

Genuine question. Doesn't that experience make you concerned about more centralization of government and it being further removed from local level? I definitely, definitely don't want to sidetrack this thread onto the 'B' word, just interested.

i also immediately thought of the B word when i read the bit about self interest in Loobs post

[L00b]

16 hours ago, woodview said:

Genuine question. Doesn't that experience make you concerned about more centralization of government and it being further removed from local level? I definitely, definitely don't want to sidetrack this thread onto the 'B' word, just interested.

Yes and no, in about equal measure.

 

Yes, because the higher you go up the greasy power pole, the more power-hungry and self-interested clingers on usually are, even when they started off with good intentions. But that's a constant regardless of the scale of country (region>county>municipality>...) and government, wherein less centralization of government isn't going to change that - just the scope of manoeuvering and exercise.

 

And no, because like it or loathe it, centralization is necessary (up to a point) to drive national policies, achieve scale economies and interact in an international context. That's likewise a constant, which scales up with the jurisdictional construct (UK is an example after a fashion, with national Parliaments (Wales, Scotland, NI) empowered for national policies, but subservient to Union-level Parliament in Westminster for Union-scale policies).

 

 I can see where you're coming from with the 'B' reference, but it's not really relevant here or, at best, only peripherally by analogy: the EU is not a state, nor a federation and, objectively, is highly unlikely to become a federation in our lifetimes, if ever (consult Lord Kerr -he of drafting Article 50 TEU fame- musings on the topic, most enlightening). It's a club of nation states for mutualising respective national interests in a limited set of domains (those necessary to 'make it work'). The obvious checks on each greasy pole climber (Commission senior appointments) are through the consensus of 28 required to get nominated for the job (plus PR election for the President and the fully-formed Commission by EU Parliament). Much higher thresholds of capacity and probity required in that context, to land a 'government' spot.

[melthebell]

Heres one, that could win you a lot of money if proved the place doesnt exist

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49432677

[Longcol]

25 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Heres one, that could win you a lot of money if proved the place doesnt exist

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49432677

Lol - lots of places don't exist according to some of the more bizarre theories - Australia for one;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15/australia-doesnt-exist-and-other-bizarre-geographic-conspiracies-that-wont-go-away

 

Does that mean MAC33 doesn't exist 😮